At the risk of putting word in his mouth...his point is that Android is less disadvantaged by it's apparent bias towards free, as the revenue they drive (read: good feeling toward brand) is actually a much bigger deal than any actual profits made by selling apps or in-app purchases.

I appreciate all the ZZ translation. Well, that's a fair point, and worth keeping in mind. A point to keep in mind for Android, even if they have trouble getting Android users to get their wallets out.

(Though let's face it, no one wants an app for every single store under the earth. It's the apps that gather together and curate and manage for you that are really useful - e.g. the recent, nifty restaurant ordering app Seamless. Or, as you mentioned, ZZ, the excellent Gas Buddy. These apps need a business model like any other.)

I still think games are very big and require paying customers, and "pure" apps that deliver experiences or utilities are very significant as well.

lookmark, utility apps are nice and all, but on the PC, most productivity apps worth using have open source equivalents or otherwise freeware equivalents, especially utilities. E.g. FTP, IRC, Chat, Web Browser, Mail, etc. apps are free. On iOS so much as a file manager costs money. So people pay money.On android, most every major utility category has a good free app available. Why pay for an app when programmers are making free apps that have good quality available, e.g. the File Expert Filemanager on Android (which on iOS a comparable app would cost $5) or MoboPlayer (OPlayer HD on iOS costs $5 as well) and many othe examples of high quality free apps, such as Firefox (instead of paying for an iOS mail app) and AndroIRC (comapre to $5 IRC apps for iOS), and PocketCloud (compare to for-pay RDP apps on iOS). All of these apps are high quality, well made apps, and although many have ads, you get the impression the programmer doesn't plan to make a living on the apps but simply wants to have fun and make a small profit. In other words, with competition like this (numerous high quality free apps with minimal advertising) why bother paying unless you really hate ads or "lite" versions? On iOS, you HAVE to pay because no other choice is available. This extends into many other app denominations too. High quality bejeweled clones are available for free on android; on iOS you have to pay for Bejeweled. On Windows, Bejeweled is free. Same with high quality Card Games; free on android, paid on iOS. Etc etc. Maybe the reason Google Play makes less money is there's less reason to pay money at all. Good, high-quality apps with unintrusive ads or no ads at all are free on the platform (somewhat like Windows).

Given that a typical "for pay" app is about a buck and that's it for revenue, then a "come to my store" app only has to have a lifetime net revenue enhancement of two bucks per user (for the same download count) to be wildly more profitable. And, the download count for the free one is likely higher anyway. We have, after all, an 80/20 split (last known; probably unchanged) even in iOS.

The point you're making here is obvious. It's probably quite common for PC users to spend more money over the life of the machine at online retail sites than they do on buying software for the machine, for instance. This isn't a failure of the "for pay" PC software market, it's just a consequence of the fact that the software industry is one small slice of the economy, and the device in question is also used to engage with the larger economy.

I think what you're doing here is defending the notion that Android's larger market share will inevitably lead to a more powerful ecosystem, and the platform's struggles with paid apps don't show otherwise because direct app revenue isn't really that important. But this reasoning fails to account for the (very likely) possibility that app purchasing is a decent proxy for general user engagement. It also fails to account for the fact that many apps that can enrich a platform's ecosystem aren't going to be created for marketing purposes. Even if Android does achieve parity (or better) for 'come to my store' apps, if developers can't make money selling apps qua apps, there are a huge range of apps that won't exist on the platform.

ZeroZanzibar wrote:

Nobody says "down load my free PC app" even if they exist; the conclusion I reach is that the mobile ones actually make money because the consumer is on the move; they aren't when in front of that PC.

No doubt that plays a role, but I think you're continuing to overestimate the comfort level the median PC user has with acquiring and installing apps via traditional desktop methods. Most simple "single serving" apps likely don't provide enough value to overcome that barrier.

"huge range of apps" seems to basically come down to games, since most productivity apps don't sell that well on Windows either (except Photoshop Elements and Nero), and besides most have free alternatives on both Windows and Android. (see all the many free irc, chat, video, music, podcast, remote desktop, terminal, etc. apps for android). Many apps that fill the traditional paid-app roles on PCs that are productivity based in fact come with android -- QuickOffice comes on a lot of phones, and all the major moible office suites (except Apple's iWork for obvious reasons) support Android. A video editor comes with android, and Photoshop Express is available on android. Many Android phones bundle a photo touch up tool by the manufactuer.And initial signs indicate some games do indeed sell well on Android, and Android does have a wide range of gaming experiences, including the best versions of some titles like GTAIII.So... to each his own i guess?

Let's not forget that when it comes to "range of apps" Android is already well ahead of iOS. There are whole classes of apps which aren't allowed on iOS. Widgets, live wallpapers, task automators, custom keyboards etc. I don't see any comparitive categories which are only available in iOS. It's generally just a matter of having a greater choice in a few categories especially games where anyway most games play much better on large Android phones than dinky iPhones.

But that is not a whole category that exists on iOS and not Android; like I said it is a case of having greater choice within a category. Furthermore the gap is pretty small on phones and the gaming experience on a 3.5 inch screen is generally crap compared to a Note or GS3. I often try out games on iPhones and I have yet to come across one with a better experience than the ones on my Note.

Let's not forget that when it comes to "range of apps" Android is already well ahead of iOS. There are whole classes of apps which aren't allowed on iOS. Widgets, live wallpapers, task automators, custom keyboards etc. I don't see any comparitive categories which are only available in iOS. It's generally just a matter of having a greater choice in a few categories especially games where anyway most games play much better on large Android phones than dinky iPhones.

Indeed. The Android platform delivers all kinds of application functionality in genres that elude iOS, not surprising given it has evolved from a media player, the ipod touch. And then to top off the superior app experiences there is superior hardware to run them on.

3.5" screens on the iPhone are like looking into a limited walled garden through a postage stamp.

Don't confuse him with technical details, he thought the Surface was a 7" tablet.

Wow, you only used that jab 4x based on a I mistaken tweet I quoted during a live blog. How will I ever show my face on the BF again after that blunder

It shows that you criticise things before you even understand the basic facts. Just like your comment about the cables coming from the Nexus Q.

It's from Google its automatically shit in Apple cheerleader/shareholder fairy land of cherry blossoms.

Some will settle for a cheap, limited functionality toy like the Apple TV made by Chinese underage kids, others will pay a premium for something made in the US with a quality tactile experience and power amps etc.

You're getting quite fond of trotting that one out. Apple have been very clear that this is not acceptable practice by any of their suppliers and that they have been quick to take action wherever such practices have been discovered. (See here, starting on Pg9.)

If you have any evidence to suggest otherwise, please post a link. Not snark -- I'd be genuinely interested to see it.

Project Glass is a prime example. Typical geek mistake of putting technological coolness over everyday user functionality. It's a great idea, but the execution is botched.

Yeah, they should just never have tried. Cause if it isn't ready for the average consumer, then it's worthless. Early devices aimed at geeks? Fuck geeks.

It's becoming clear to me that buying into the Apple world is a lot like buying a motorcycle... The people who do so immediately start deriding everyone else as geeks/cagers in an attempt to fit into their new-found club.

Some will settle for a cheap, limited functionality toy like the Apple TV made by Chinese underage kids, others will pay a premium for something made in the US with a quality tactile experience and power amps etc.

What is a "quality tactical experience"? A round AV component that won't fit in my entertainment center? Who needs a power amp when most people who care about these sort of things have a receiver anyway? What makes the Q any better than the cheaper ATV, Roku, 360, etc. from a content perspective?

I don't see the audience for the Nexus Q at all outside of hardcore Apple-hating geeks.

Let's not forget that when it comes to "range of apps" Android is already well ahead of iOS. There are whole classes of apps which aren't allowed on iOS. Widgets, live wallpapers, task automators, custom keyboards etc. I don't see any comparitive categories which are only available in iOS. It's generally just a matter of having a greater choice in a few categories especially games where anyway most games play much better on large Android phones than dinky iPhones.

Indeed. The Android platform delivers all kinds of application functionality in genres that elude iOS—

man...any metric you can latch onto, huh? Just watch ICS over the summer. it will be on more phones than iOS devices before long (maybe by the end of the year or sooner).

Another prediction out of you? So wait, are you saying ICS will be on more devices than there are iOS devices (365 million+), by the end of this year (5 months)? BTW what are you doing for Android tablet domination day in 2 days, per your last awesome prediction?

Well since I didn't predict Android tablet domination, I have no idea what you are talking about.

As for iOS--Is that 365mil the number now or the number by the end of the year?

Quote:

Thanks for the compelling argument. May I offer:

Does not look much like the post-iPhone Android devices to me.

May I offer:

As proof that they do in fact look like that. Not all of course. But some.

another:

Is this enough, or do you would you like to see more. I don't remember anyone every saying that Android would only have one style.

[Right, the CEO of the company is full of shit and some obessessive compulsive poster on an Internet forum sees right through to the facts. Dude, for once stop embarrassing yourself. The CEO of the company said it was more profitable in terms of investment and return. Just stop taliking, for once, or at least until Android tablets outsell iPads.

I addressed that exact point. that it was a bullshit metric:

Quote:

So revenue divided by man years. All that means is that "man years" was very low to drive up the ratio.

[Right, the CEO of the company is full of shit and some obessessive compulsive poster on an Internet forum sees right through to the facts. Dude, for once stop embarrassing yourself. The CEO of the company said it was more profitable in terms of investment and return. Just stop taliking, for once, or at least until Android tablets outsell iPads.

Not even in the same league. iOS users also don't download apps to find them taking over and sending advertisements to them all over the place. Care to tell me what malware was released on the iOS store that affected the entire phone? Good luck.

[Right, the CEO of the company is full of shit and some obessessive compulsive poster on an Internet forum sees right through to the facts. Dude, for once stop embarrassing yourself. The CEO of the company said it was more profitable in terms of investment and return. Just stop taliking, for once, or at least until Android tablets outsell iPads.

I addressed that exact point. that it was a bullshit metric:

Right. The CEO has no clue and you have all the answers. Same old.

It is factual I am sure--it is also bullshit. And yes he knows it. if it was really as great as he said, they would be dropping big titles and just doing tons of those IB type games. They aren't because tehy just don't make a lot of money.

$20mil is not really a lot of money. It isn't enough to really get them excited. it is enough for them to continuing tinkering. The real money is game consoles. and they know it. GOW 1-3 has had about $1B in total revenue. Nothing on the iOS comes close.

Not even in the same league. iOS users also don't download apps to find them taking over and sending advertisements to them all over the place. Care to tell me what malware was released on the iOS store that affected the entire phone? Good luck.

Care to tell me what percent of Android users are downloading these apps? It's not some horrifically widespread problem. Shit, most of the malware is from sideloaded apps, not the Google store.

Not even in the same league. iOS users also don't download apps to find them taking over and sending advertisements to them all over the place. Care to tell me what malware was released on the iOS store that affected the entire phone? Good luck.

Care to tell me what percent of Android users are downloading these apps? It's not some horrifically widespread problem. Shit, most of the malware is from sideloaded apps, not the Google store.

Not even in the same league. iOS users also don't download apps to find them taking over and sending advertisements to them all over the place. Care to tell me what malware was released on the iOS store that affected the entire phone? Good luck.

Care to tell me what percent of Android users are downloading these apps? It's not some horrifically widespread problem. Shit, most of the malware is from sideloaded apps, not the Google store.

Ars is a poor sample group, too. I'd bet that Ars members are far more likely to 'stray' outside the garden and "sideload" (good use of terminology there... definitely a negative connotation) perhaps get into the weeds than 'regular' consumers.

These issues were enough for PCWorld to pick it up. You really think these types of issues should come up for Ars users first? And another article on the Ad scanner to detect the other networks such as what was referenced in the thread. Someone should tell the writers that no one really encounters this so there's no reason for their article.

Looks like Facebook is rewriting their HTML5 Frankenstein app to use native Objective C code. That's great since currently the app is slow and unreliable. It seems like native apps still are the best (or maybe only?) way to get good performance. I wonder what this means for the current app climate.

Looks like Facebook is rewriting their HTML5 Frankenstein app to use native Objective C code. That's great since currently the app is slow and unreliable. It seems like native apps still are the best (or maybe only?) way to get good performance. I wonder what this means for the current app climate.

Dunno... but pretty damning of the "everything will be better with HTML5" mantra. But then, that was only a stopgap to get people to pause early on (and a safeguard from behind cut out of the market). Now that it doesn't matter as much, it's much better for Apple for people to write native apps. Too bad Apple even chooses the small sample set of languages you have to use... "thinking different" at its finest.

[Right, the CEO of the company is full of shit and some obessessive compulsive poster on an Internet forum sees right through to the facts. Dude, for once stop embarrassing yourself. The CEO of the company said it was more profitable in terms of investment and return. Just stop taliking, for once, or at least until Android tablets outsell iPads.

I addressed that exact point. that it was a bullshit metric:

Right. The CEO has no clue and you have all the answers. Same old.

It is factual I am sure--it is also bullshit. And yes he knows it. if it was really as great as he said, they would be dropping big titles and just doing tons of those IB type games. They aren't because tehy just don't make a lot of money.

$20mil is not really a lot of money. It isn't enough to really get them excited. it is enough for them to continuing tinkering. The real money is game consoles. and they know it. GOW 1-3 has had about $1B in total revenue. Nothing on the iOS comes close.

You're missing the point entirely. The game industry, like Hollywood, is full of creative types who would rather do indie type stuff than blockbusters. Why? Did you ever stop for a moment and think of why he would say this? Because he has soo much Apple stock and it's not worth enough yet? Hardly.

I think he's saying this because he'd rather not have the management and hassle of a AAA game where there are fewer creative risks possible. Oh, his example is no great innovative experiment, but how many Gears of War do you think this man wants to play, LET ALONE MANAGE? Why are there 5 Gran Turismos? Because it's a simulation and it keeps getting more realistic, fine. But why are there so many other huge AAA story-based sequels in the game industry? Because the massive upfront costs of these games discourage risk taking.

Of course he'd rather make more profitable, less financially risk, less troublesome games with less sequels and less bitching fans. Even as a business, profit share is better than revenue maximization.

But to make a bigger point here, how many indie studios have been created from burned out developers fleeing AAA game studios? Dozens. It's just plain burnout. Why has xbox 360 lasted so long? The industry is in a rut, overcome with business requirements at the expense of their creativity. I think it's an industry wide issue, and a lot of these guys see the mobile stuff as an outlet and an opportunity to escape. Who here wants to work on modeling shrubbery for a stealth action title for 4 years? Who wants to bicker with Ukrainians over language translation costs? Who wants to spend hours in meetings to determine if the 10-12 teams are still on track for a holiday release? Anyone?

Ok, now who wants to create an all-new title with a new touch interface that has never been tried before with a team of 5? Or even just another derivative touch title with a new, simpler art style whose title doesn't have the number 5 after it?

In a roundabout way, this comes back to Apple and Steve Jobs. If Apple hadn't bottomed out, it would never have been small enough and modest enough to work on candy colored PC cases and ipods. It's art/craftsmanship came from pretty small teams with pretty opinionated passionate people and even now their OS software team is a fraction of Microsoft's. Business kills art, sooner or later. Apple, Pixar and Blizzard have managed as well as anyone, but it's still an incredibly rare, precious thing.

These issues were enough for PCWorld to pick it up. You really think these types of issues should come up for Ars users first? And another article on the Ad scanner to detect the other networks such as what was referenced in the thread. Someone should tell the writers that no one really encounters this so there's no reason for their article.

Sure it's pretty and nice, but it's not the original iPhone or iPad in terms of blowing the doors off the industry.

It hasn't even been three years since iPad. You can't blow the doors off the industry every five minutes.

DCop wrote:

Indeed. The Android platform delivers all kinds of application functionality in genres that elude iOS, not surprising given it has evolved from a media player, the ipod touch. And then to top off the superior app experiences there is superior hardware to run them on.

3.5" screens on the iPhone are like looking into a limited walled garden through a postage stamp.

Hahaha. Describing the availability of widgets and BitTorrent clients and so forth as "superior app experiences" is classic projection of geek priorities onto the mainstream market (and pretty trollish phrasing as well). Actual users seem to find more value in the iOS ecosystem. As demonstrated by the fact that they spend more money there. This whole argument is bizarre. ZZ in particular seems to have switched from saying something like "Developers can't make money selling apps on mobile platforms, and this is a problem for iOS" to something like "Developers can't make money selling apps on mobile platforms, and it doesn't matter". It's all a bunch of handwaving to avoid the admission that developers seem to be able to make substantially more money selling apps on iOS than on Android, and this has made iOS the 'default' platform for new apps despite Android's larger market share.

fitten wrote:

Depends... like many things Google does, it's a long game. No one really knows if AR will even be useful but no one will be able to find out unless there's something out there for them to play with.

You mean like how Apple didn't know tablets would be useful until they started publicly selling iPad prototypes to developers in 2005?

Oh, wait.

This industry tends to reward companies that ship finished products as enabling technologies allow those products to cross a threshold of sophistication that makes them widely useful. Historically, publicly shipping products as soon as an any implementation becomes remotely plausible confers no commercial advantage, and seems to have even been detrimental in some cases.

I believe augmented reality will be a foundational technology that changes the way humans experience the world. But an AR product shipped next year is likely to be to eventual mass-market AR platforms what the Xerox Star was to eventual mass-market GUI platforms. It's too early.

. ZZ in particular seems to have switched from saying something like "Developers can't make money selling apps on mobile platforms, and this is a problem for iOS" to something like "Developers can't make money selling apps on mobile platforms, and it doesn't matter"

ZnU, you gotta stop speaking for me, because you don't represent my arguments correctly in the least.

It's tiresome to watch you mangle my argument into something you can handle.

I believe augmented reality will be a foundational technology that changes the way humans experience the world. But an AR product shipped next year is likely to be to eventual mass-market AR platforms what the Xerox Star was to eventual mass-market GUI platforms. It's too early.

Somebody has to be first, and Google has the deep pockets to fund such things.

It's not entirely connected but John Carmack's recent work on adding HMD support to Doom 3 is another case, he doesn't expect it to make money, but he wants to support people who are trying to create cheap wide field of view HMDs.

A lot of smart people have noticed that mobile SoCs, displays, and sensors, are making AR and VR more viable, but those fields have still not taken off. So here and there there are people and companies giving it a push. Good luck to them, success is not only measured in dollars.

Thus... "long game". It shouldn't be hard to imagine how Google will make money off stuff like that... self driving cabs with advertisements running inside, etc. The good thing is that I can easily tune stuff like that out if it isn't overbearing so it's no inconvenience for me, really. And if it's so loud or whatever that you can't tune it out, it'll fail because no one will use it.

Anyone who can really crack self driving vehicles won't be looking to fund them from advertising. They'd have the bulk of the global transport industry to cannibalise, and amounts of money that would make even Apple gasp.

Anyone who can really crack self driving vehicles won't be looking to fund them from advertising. They'd have the bulk of the global transport industry to cannibalise, and amounts of money that would make even Apple gasp.

Who needs to advertise with signage when the cab will just drop you off in front of the Apple store instead of the Best Buy 2 blocks up that you really wanted to go to?

Anyone who can really crack self driving vehicles won't be looking to fund them from advertising. They'd have the bulk of the global transport industry to cannibalise, and amounts of money that would make even Apple gasp.

++

Right now, my wife and I commute an hour per day, each way.

If I could be convinced of its safety, I'd easily spend an extra 5K for a self-driving car over the I-drive-it version of the same car. Easily. At 10K, I'd think about it, but I probably would spend it. If I was convinced it was actually safer, the 10K would look quite alright.

Does anyone think the materials cost of a workable, self-driving car would be remotely close to even 1K in a mass produced vehicle?

And, that's before we would even consider how mass transit would change. Now you could have self-driving cabs that took orders on-line and optimized routes in the fly. I suppose we could do that now, but the economics of it become quite different when the driver is taken out of the vehicle. Imagine a bus system that could run with individual cars taking custom, on-the-fly routes, and yet still having people sometimes share a cab. Or, a mini-mini bus of some kind.

Advertising would finish about 55th in terms of what Google could make with this if it really works.

The only impressive part of the iPad3 is the high DPI screen, which is a procurement problem at best. Everything else is used by virtually all major vendors in the space, and existed on prior hardware.

Quote:

Are you waiting for holographic AI?

No, but seeing someone take steps towards making life imitate art:

That gets me interested. But I'm just a geek, which negates the value of my opinion (according to the Battlefront Standard Argument.)